August v. Hanlon
975 N.E.2d 1234
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Charles August sued Robert Hanlon for slander per quod and false light invasion of privacy, alleging defamatory statements by Hanlon in media coverage of a separate Merryman Excavation matter.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hanlon under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (Act) and denied attorney fees.
- The Act, effective August 2007, immunizes acts in furtherance of petition, speech, association, or participation in government and provides an expedited adjudication process and potential attorney’s fees for prevailing movants.
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443, interpreted Section 15 of the Act and held that not all defamation-related lawsuits qualify for immunity; the plaintiff’s suit must be solely based on protected acts to be barred.
- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, held that the Act did not immunize the plaintiff’s claims, affirmed some rulings governing fees/sanctions as moot, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Act applicable to this case? | August contends the Act does not apply. | Hanlon contends the Act immunizes the claims. | No; the Act does not immunize the claims. |
| Is Hanlon a “person” protected by the Act when acting on behalf of a client? | August argues not using his own petition rights. | Hanlon contends attorney actions can be protected. | Not covered as to extend immunity to attorney’s extrajudicial statements. |
| Does Sandholm retroactively apply to this case to defeat the grant of summary judgment? | Sandholm requires re-evaluation; plaintiff’s suit not solely based on petition rights. | Sandholm is distinguishable or does not require reversal. | Sandholm applies retroactively to require reversal of summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2012) (interprets Act §15; merits-based immunity determination; not all defamation suits barred)
- Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh, 238 Ill. 2d 620 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2010) (definitional and procedural scope of the Act; liberally construed)
- Mund v. Brown, 393 Ill. App. 3d 994 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2009) (discusses SLAPP concepts and Act’s objectives)
- Shoreline Towers Condominium Ass’n v. Gassman, 404 Ill. App. 3d 1013 (Illinois Appellate Court, 2010) (addressed retroactivity of the Act as procedural)
- Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill. 2d 146 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1980) (adopted fair-reporting privilege in Illinois)